Singapore, 23 May 2008

Advanced Energy Efficiency for Process Industries and

Semiconductor Manufacturing

Amory B. Lovins 盧安武, For. Memb. Royal Swedish Acad. of Eng. SciencesChairman & Chief Scientist Rocky Mountain Institute www.rmi.org

ablovins@rmi.org

Copyright © 2008 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rights reserved. Unlimited free internal .PDF reproduction licensed to participants and sponsors.

Saving energy is cheaper than buying it, so climate protection is profitable even if you don’t think it’s necessary

�� IBM and STMicroelectronics�� CO2 emissions –6%/y, fast paybacks

�� DuPont’s 2000–2010 worldwide goals �� Energy use/$ –6%/y, add renewables, cut absolute

greenhouse gas emissions by 65% below 1990 level �� By 2006: actually cut GHG 80% below 1990, $3b profit

�� Dow: cut E/lb 22% 1994–2005, $3.3b profit

�� BP’s 2010 CO2 goal met 8 y early, $1.6b profit

�� GE pledged 2005 to boost its eff. 30% by 2012 �� Interface: 1994–2006 GHG –62% (–9.2%/y) �� TI new chip fab: –20% en., –35% water, –30% capex

�� So while the politicians debate theoretical “costs,”

smart firms are racing to pocket real profits!

2007 Vattenfall/McKinsey supply curve for abating global greenhouse gases(technologically very conservative, esp. for transport)

Average cost of whole curve ~ 2/TCO2e (Exec. Sum., p. 5)�www.vattenfall.com/www/ccc/ccc/577730downl/index.jsp January 2007

World emissions were 37 GTCO2e in 2000 and rising

27 GtCO2e in 2030 is 46% of base-case emissions�

Two Asian fab retrofit examples(by one of RMI’s strategic engineering partners)

�� Big Asian back-end: 1997 retrofit, mainly HVAC•� Cut energy use 56% (69%/chip) in 11 months with 14-month

average payback; further projects are saving more

�� STMicroelectronics’s world-class Singapore fab•� ’94–97 retrofits saved US$2.2M/y with 0.95-y av. payback •� ’91–97 improvements saved $30M; kWh/150mm std. wafer –

60%—providing 80% of energy capacity for 3.5� expansion; 80% paid back within 18 months

•� All retrofits were performed during continuous operation via cryogenic freeze-plugs and hot-taps (>20 each)

�� This is mainly just harvesting the low-hanging fruit that already fell down and is mushing up around the ankles (remember: the tree keeps producing more!)

�� If the fabs had been properly designed, none of this would be possible—but they used infectious repetitis

Fab retrofits at STMicroelectronics

�� RMI analyzed eight fabs during 1998–2000

�� Found 30–50+% potential retrofit energy savings

�� Aftertax returns often �100%/y (59%/y in one) �� Generally just HVAC—no changes to chipmaking process

�� Simple paybacks generally <2 y (0–3 y; a very few ~5–7 y)

�� Never worsened, usually improved, operational parameters

�� First two implementers cut HVAC energy up to 40% in year 1

�� Earlier, in 1994–97, STM had cut energy & water use by �5%/y, or �10%/y per $ value added [“VA”]

�� End 1998 (1st y working with RMI): energy use 17% below 1994 at equal production value; #12 chipmaker, US$4.3b revenue, US$0.4b profit

�� 1999: energy/$VA –6.5% in 1 y (= 1994 – 26%); #8 chipmaker, US$5b revenue, US$0.5b profit

Retrofit results from STMicroelectronics (continued)

�� 2000: energy/$VA –22% in 1 y (= 1994 – 29%); #6 chipmaker, US$7.8b revenue, US$1.5b profit, of which saved energy & resources were US$77 million

�� 2001: industry downturn began, but lower costs helped STM become #3 at the time; VA –15%; despite tough times, further kWh & water savings in 2001 added US$10 million profit

�� 2002: energy/standard wafer –15% from 2001; kWh/pin down by half over 6 y (= 1994 – 40%); water use/wafer ~ 1994 – 50%, water/pin –40%

�� 1994–2001: ~US$60 million total energy savings; 350 more projects identified for 2002–04 to add >US$11 million/y extra savings; all paybacks <3 y, av. 2 y

Petrochemical-complex retrofit

� Cogen w/ (or don’t make/throttle) 1300# steam ›�Turboexpander/cogen >10 MW, US$45M PV ›�Replace a boiler with a second CO burner? ›�Accept free GM HT fuel-cell offer; burns all HCs›�Vent no steam; absorption chilling (even 50#),

save condensate, save 130# steam 3:1 ›�Emphasize furnace optimization & innovation

�� Hi-temp heat distills H2O for boilers/CTs/finfans �� Distributed and optimized distillation �� Integrate with some neighbouring facilities �� Compress air only to pressure required, no letdown �� Sensors, graphical data presentation �� Hi-� CTs, overcool, ?wellwater summer sink

Some of the biggest retrofit savings are the simplest

�� Turn off things you’re not using

�� Run existing cooling towers properly—run all towers all the time at variable speed

�� Big slow fans use far less energy than small fast fans

�� Use free cooling: at STM’s Agrate fab, cost 80% less to run than chillers, saved US$0.5M/y, –4 MW during >100 winter days/year, 1–3y payback

�� So all chillers should have variable-speed drive to exploit seasonal differences in wetbulb temperature

�� No secondary pumping—primary only

1989 supply curve for saveable US electricity (vs. 1986 frozen efficiency)

Best 1989 commerci-ally available, retrofit-table technologies

Similar S, DK, D, UK…

EPRI found 40–60% saving 2000 potential

Now conservative: savings keep getting bigger and cheaper faster than they’re being depleted

Measured technical cost and performance data for ~1,000 technologies (RMI 1986–92, 6 vol, 2,509 pp, 5,135 notes)

–44 to +46˚C with no heating/cool- ing equipment, less construction cost

�� Lovins house / RMI HQ, Snowmass, Colorado, ’84 �� Saves 99% of space & water

heating energy, 90% of home el. (372 m2 use ~120 Wav costing US$5/month @ US$0.07/kWh)

�� 10-month payback in 1983

2200 m, frost any day, 39 days’ continuous midwinter cloud…yet 28 banana crops with no furnace

Key: integrative design—multiplebenefits from single expenditures

�� PG&E ACT2, Davis CA, ’94 �� Mature-market cost –US$1,800

�� Present-valued maint. –$1,600

�� 82% design saving from 1992 California Title 24 code

�� Prof. Soontorn Boonyatikarn house, Bangkok, Thailand, ’96 �� 84% less a/c capacity, ~90%

less a/c energy, better comfort

�� No extra construction cost

Old design mentality:always diminishing returns...

High efficiency doesn’t always raiseeven components’ capital cost

�� Motor Master database shows no correlation between efficiency and trade price for North American motors (1,800-rpm TEFC Design B) up to at least 220 kW

�� Same for industrial pumps, most rooftop chillers, refrigerators, televisions,…

�� “In God we trust”; all others bring data

E SOURCE (www.esource.com) Drivepower Technology Atlas, 1999, p. 143, by permission

Buying this motor instead of this motor can cost you >US$20,000 present value�

Partial motor survey in a typical chip fab found a US$1.4Mpotential PV saving just from using premium-efficiency motors to replace 75 typicallyinefficient motors (2.5 MW)—1/3 of the plant’s total motors

= An oil major’s 1/99 min. (EP, which is inherently ~0,4–1,6 % points below TEFC)�= best U.S. 2000 explosion-proof efficiency�

New design mentality: expanding returns, “tunneling through the cost barrier”

New design mentality: expanding returns, “tunneling through the cost barrier”

“Tunnel” straight to the

superefficient lower-cost

destination rather than

taking the long way

around

Examples from RMI’s industrial practice (>$30b of facilities)

�� Retrofit eight chip fabs, save 30–50+% of HVAC energy, ~2-y paybacks

�� Retrofit very efficient oil refinery, save 42%, ~3-y payback

�� Retrofit North Sea oil platform, save 50% el., get the rest from waste

�� Retrofit huge LNG plant, �40% energy savings; ~60% new, cost less

�� Retrofit giant platinum mine, 43% energy savings, 2–3-y payback

�� Redesign $5b gas-to-liquids plant, save >50% energy and 20% capex

�� Redesign next new chip fab, eliminate chillers, save 2/3 el. & 1/2 capex

�� Redesign new data center, save 89%, cut capex & time, improve uptime

�� Redesign new mine, save 100% of fossil fuel (it’s powered by gravity)

�� Redesign supermarket, save 70–90%, better sales, ?lower capex

�� Redesign new chemical plant, save ~3/4 of auxiliary el., –10% capex

�� Redesign cellulosic ethanol plant, –50% steam, –60% el, –30% capex

�� Retrofits save ~30–60% w/2–3-y payback; new ~40–90% w/less capex

�� “Tunneling through the cost barrier” now observed in 29 sectors

�� None of this would be possible if original designs had been good

�� Needs engineering pedadogy/practice reforms; see www.10xE.org (RMI’s plot for the nonviolent overthrow of bad engineering)

Two ways to tunnel throughthe cost barrier

1. Multiple benefits from single expenditures�� Save energy and capital costs…10 benefits from

superwindows, 18 from efficient motors & lighting ballasts,...

�� Throughout the design: e.g., RMI HQ’s arch has 12 functions, one cost

2. Piggyback on retrofits�� A 19,000-m2 Chicago office could save 3/4 of

energy at same cost as normal 20-y renovation — and greatly improve human performance

Cost can be negative even for retrofits of big buildings

�� 19,000-m2, 20-year-old curtainwall office near Chicago (hot & humid summer, very cold winter)

�� Dark-glass window units’ edge-seals were failing

�� Replace not with similar but with superwindows �� Let in nearly 6� more light, 0.9� as much unwanted heat, reduce

heat loss and noise by 3–4�, cost US$8.4/m2glass more

�� Add deep daylighting, plus very efficient lights (3 W/m2) and office eqt (2 W/m2); peak cooling –76%

�� Replace big old cooling system with a new one 4�smaller, 3.8� more efficient, US$0.2 million cheaper

�� That capital saving pays for all the extra costs

�� 75% energy saving—cheaper than usual renovation

“People who seem to have had a new idea have

often just stopped having an old

idea”

The Nine Dots ProblemThe Nine Dots Problem

The Nine Dots ProblemThe Nine Dots Problem

origami solution

geographer’s

solution

mechanical

engineer’s solution

statistician's

solution

wide line

solution

New design mentality

• Redesigning a standard(supposedlyoptimized) industrial pumping loop cut power from 70.8 to 5.3 kW (–92%), cost less to build, and worked better

�� Just two changes in design mentality

New design mentality,an example

1. Big pipes, small pumps (not the opposite)

No new technologies, just two design changes

2. Lay out the pipes first, then the equipment (not the reverse)

No new technologies, just two design changes

��Fat, short, straight pipes — not thin, long, crooked pipes!

��Benefits counted �� 92% less pumping energy (12� reduction) �� Lower capital cost

��“Bonus” benefit also captured �� 70 kW lower heat loss from pipes

��Additional benefits not counted �� Less space, weight, and noise �� Clean layout for easy maintenance access �� But needs little maintenance—more reliable �� Longer equipment life

��Count these and save…~98%?

This case is archetypical

� Most technical systems are designed to optimize isolated components for single benefits

��Designing them instead to optimize the whole system for multiple benefits typically yields ~3–10x energy/ resource savings, and usually costs less to build, yet improves performance

��We need a pedagogic casebook of diverse examples…for the nonviolent overthrow of bad engineering (RMI’s 10XE (“Factor Ten Engineering” project—partners welcome)

Why focus on pumping examples?

�� Pumping is the world’s biggest use of motors

�� Motors use 3/5 of all electricity

�� A big motor running constantly uses its capital cost in electricity every few weeks

�� RMI (1989) and EPRI (1990) found ~1/2 of typical industrial motor-system energy could be saved by retrofits costing <US$0.005(1986 $) per saved kWh—a ~16-month payback at a US$0.05/kWh tariff. Why so cheap? Buy 7 savings, get 28 more for free!

�� Downstream savings are often bigger and cheaper—so minimize flow and friction first

Typical areas for big savings

�� Thermal integration

�� Power systems

�� Designing friction out of fluid-handling systems

�� Water/energy integration

�� Superefficient and heat-driven refrigeration

�� Superefficient drivesystems

�� Advanced controls

Let’s look at one example: pumping systems

Designing for efficiency

�� Task elimination before task: why do it? �� Eliminate muda: making defective or unwanted product,

anything not requested, mistakes requiring rectification, unnecessary inputs or process steps, waiting for some- thing to happen, moving things without purpose,…

�� Demand before supply

�� Downstream before upstream

�� Application before equipment

�� People before hardware

�� Passive before active

�� Quality before quantity

Designing for breakthrough industrial energy efficiency: the eightfold way

Capture multiple benefits

Make them compound

Free up the most capacity

Avoid the most capex

Eliminate the most waste & harm

Make the most profit

Do the most good

Have the most fun

This approach makes it possible to:

1.� Business vision, model, strategy, & culture first: why do it?

2. Task elimination before task •� Eliminate muda: making defective or

unwanted product, anything not re-quested, mistakes requiring rectifi-cation, unnecessary inputs or pro-cess steps, waiting for something to happen, moving things without purpose,…

3. Demand before supply

4. Downstream before upstream

5. Application before equipment

6. People before hardware

7.� Passive before active

8.� Quality before quantity

But whole-system designers must think in the opposite direction to the process flow

� Save capex, not just opex, by making equipment unnecessary, smaller, or simpler

�� Consider the whole system all together

�� Optimize it for multiple benefits

�� Reduce waste: �� Can wastes be reduced or eliminated

—designed out?

�� Can wastes be recycled as inputs?

�� Can wastes be made into other products?

�� Capacity used to make waste can now make value instead—winning more capacity at zero capex:

�� Debottlenecking

�� Throughput gains

Design for whole-systemperformance, not sub-system

performance!

So how do we do this magic?

“Like Chinese cooking. Use everything. Eat the feet.”

— LEE Eng Lock, Singapore

efficiency engineer

Chinese food is world-famous for using every part and wasting nothing. Why not do everything else that way too?

Compounding losses…or savings…so start saving at the downstream end to make

upstream equipment smaller and cheaper

So each unit of avoided flow or friction at the pipe saves tenunits of fuel at the thermal power station

First seek to eliminate part or all of the flow: zero flow uses zero resources

�� LNG plant (–161˚C) in a +54˚C desert �� Each 1 C˚ by which the site is cooled by raising albedo

(white sand, crushed shells, etc. instead of grey concrete and black asphalt) saves A$106 million (in present value) via lower chiller load & cooler air

�� Sun-rejecting pavings may save 10–20 C˚ = ~A$1–2b

�� Further potential with better pipe sheathing (what gets hotter than black?)

�� Ice-cream plant, best-in-class equipment �� Insulated box contains pipes to freeze the cream

�� The same box also contains the compressors and motors!

�� Taking them out of the box uses fewer kWh to freeze the same flow of cream

�� Real-time flow optimization in cube-law machines—no choked flow

�� Less cooling needed because less heat released

Right-sizing is critical

�� Fab designers typically assume that tools will use ~2–5� more energy than they actually use

�� Typical tool duty ~0.3–0.4; load diversity is ignored

�� Phantom loads mean hundreds of extra tons ($2k/t capital cost) and incur HVAC part-load penalties

�� Inflated loads mean deep coils, big pressure drops,

oversized fans (heating air as much as tools do!)

�� Bigger fans, coils, silencers, chillers, towers, pipes, valves, ducts, motors, electricals, land, foundations, UPS & losses,…HENCE CAPITAL COST

�� More filters, resins, O&M, noise, insurance,....

Indirect benefits: retrofit tool’s CRT display in cleanroom to LCD display

�� Cost << present-value energy saving (�$1k)

�� LCD lasts longer, doesn’t drift, and is more reliable

�� LCD is easier to read (less fatigue, fewer errors)

�� Lightweight, small footprint, less UPS/HVAC sizing

�� Better laminar flow (no “thermal chimney”)

�� No static charge or outgas compromising cleanroom

�� Sealed, no slots with airflow to gather & stir up dust

�� No implosion, high-voltage, or electromagnetic interference risks

Indirect benefits: Convert cleanroom fluorescent lamps to light-pipe feed

�� Severalfold heat reduction, worth ~US$8–9/W

�� No disturbance to laminar flow, no EMI or static

�� No lamps to replace in cleanroom: less traffic, no breakage risk, no particle shedding from contacts

�� No ballasts to fail or outgas

�� Easy to reconfigure tint or location

�� Indirect light: same/better visibility @ 5� fewer lux

�� Delivers attractive light with no flicker or hum

�� Less fatigue, better visibility and productivity

99%�

hydraulic pipe layout�

vs.�

Then minimize friction EXAMPLE

1%�

Boolean pipe layout�

optional

99%�

High-efficiency pumping / piping retrofit (Rumsey Engineers, Oakland Museum)

downsized CW pumps, ~4x energy saving, 15 negapumps

Notice smooth piping design

– 45os and Ys

15 “negapumps”�

The bottom line: low operating cost, high performance

Oakland Musem Chiller Retrofit

Annual Cost Savings

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Before After

Ye

arl

yE

lec

tric

ity

Co

st

[$/y

ea

r]

CHILLER

CHILLER

CHW PUMPS

CHW PUMPS

CW PUMPS

CW PUMPS

COOLING TOWER

COOLING TOWER

62% ANNUAL COST

REDUCTION

Develop your muda spectacles…

Which of these layouts has less capex & energy use?

Condenser water plant:

traditional design

tochiller

tochiller

tochiller

return from tower

return from tower

return from tower

•� Less space, weight, friction, energy

•� Fewer parts, smaller pumps and motors, less installation labor

•� Less O&M, higher uptime�return

from

tower

tochiller

return from

tower

…or how about this?

Air handling: basic physics

cubic meter/s � pressure drop (kPa)fan efficiency � motor efficiency

Fan motor kW =�

~2�� opportunities: fan eff. (�0.82, usually vane-axial), motor system eff. (MotorMaster best, right-sized, high power factor,…—35 improvements), VFDs

~5–10�� (or greater) opportunities:

• Reduce flow: air-change rates (base on actual health goals and real-time sensors), displacement

• Reduce pressure drop: System design, wring out friction (e.g. duct layout & sizing), low face velocity

•� 60- vs. 50-cm duct saves 60% of fanpower (�P � d–5.1)

COMBINE ALL OF THESE, then downsize chillers

Static or static+dynamic pressure yields static or total fanpower. To obtain fan motor hp from cfm (ft3/min) and inches w.g., divide by 6,354�

Comparision of a Typical Lab's Consumption to

an Efficient Lab's Consumption By Category

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Light

s

Ven

tilat

ion

Coo

ling

Boi

ler,P

umps

,Mis

c

Lab E

quip

.

kW

h/y

ea

r

Typical Lab

Proposed

EPICenter

…saving 62%, at lower capex, without improving lab equipment at all�

Wet-chemistry exhaust hoods

� Efficient hoods save 70–80%, safer, lower capex

�� Two different aerodynamic methods

�� Hoods often account for 50–75% of total wet-chem-lab energy

�� Use science-based indoor-air-quality standards

�� Use sensor-based real-time controls

�� Encourage aqueous systems, supercritical CO2, dry cleaning,…

�� If we don’t want to breathe it, why make our neighbors breathe it?

�� Design out toxicity in the first place!

The right steps in the right order: space cooling

0. Cool the people, not the building

1.� Expand comfort envelope

2.�Minimize unwanted heat gains

3.� Passive cooling •� Ventilative, radiative, ground- / H2O-coupling

4.� Active nonrefrigerative cooling •� Evap, desiccant, absorption, hybrids: COP >100

•� Direct/indirect evap + VFD recip in CA: COP 25

5.� Superefficient refrigerative cooling: COP 6 (Singapore)

6.� Coolth storage and controls

7.� Cumulative energy saving: ~90–100%, better comfort, lower capital cost, better uptime

Superefficient big HVAC(105+ m2 water-cooled centrifugal, Singapore, turbulent induction air delivery — but underfloor displacement could save even more energy)

EElleemmeenntt Std kW/t(COP)

BBeesstt kkWW//tt((CCOOPP))

HHooww ttoo ddoo iitt

Supplyfan

0.60 0.061 Best vaneaxial , ~0.2–0.7kPa TSH (less w/UFDV),VAV

ChWP 0.16 0.018 120–150 kPa head,efficient pump/motor,no pri/sec

Chiller 0.75 0.481 0.6–1 Cº approaches,optimal impeller speed

CWP 0.14 0.018 90 kPa head, efficientpump/motor

CT 0.10 0.012 Big fill area, big slowfan at variable speed

TOTAL 1.75(COP 2.01)

0.59(COP 5.96,3� better)

Better comfort, lowercapital cost

(Best Singapore practice w/dual ChW temp.: 0.52 total including 0.41 chiller kW/t, COP 6.8)�

Low-face-velocity, high-coolant-velocity coils...�

Flow is laminar and condensation is dropwise, so turn the coil around sideways, run at <1 m/s; 29% better dehumidification,��P –95%; smaller chiller, fan, and parasitic loads

Correct a 1921 mistake about how coils work

Savings begin with measurement

�� Two 1996 Singapore hard-drive plants had a 54�range of kWh/drive (the high one went bankrupt in 1997)

�� One chipmaker’s rated chilled-water-plant COPs varied so widely that the worst fab’s was 42% below the best fab’s, despite having a less difficult climate

�� Only one fab’s chilled-water plant was measured; it averaged 21% below its rated COP. Only actual measured performance counts, not claims or guesses! �� That best COP was >20% below the Singapore state of the art (6.8

or 0.52 kW/t), which costs less to build

�� The owner lost >US$1M/y by not adopting its own best practices

What is efficiency worth over 20 y? (US$, $0.05/kWh, 5%/y real discount rate, zero HVAC capex + filter opex, nominal 1 kW/t HVAC + 10% parasitics)

�� 1 watt of cleanroom power use and heat release = US$7 opex…or US$8–9 including filters

�� 1 L/s (2 cfm) cleanroom exhaust = US$132

�� Fan towers (humid climate): 25 Pa (0.1"w.g.) �P = US$230,000

�� 250 Pa (1"w.g.) makeup/exh. �P = US$2.6 per L/s

�� Each percentage point’s efficiency gain in an 8766 h/y motor in conditioned space = US$95/kW

"

TI’s 2006 fab at Richardson, Texas

100,000 m2 (cleanroom 20,500 m2); all data courtesy of Paul Westbrook at TI (see his Fabscape paper 26 Oct 2004)

Construction started 18 Nov 2004, after 3-day RMI design workshop Dec 2003; completed spring 2006; awaiting tools. Why was it built in Texas, not in Asia?

Big HONKIN’ ideas (JD Bryant)

�� Holy Cow

�� Over the top

�� No Nonsense

�� Knock you out

�� I don't know why I didn’t do this before

�� Now because it will save me a *%$&^#+@ of money and time

3D - Data Driven Direction�

Wafer Fab Electrical Power Consumption

(Sematech Data - 14 fab average)

Facilities

Systems

59.3%

Process

Tools

40.7%

Process Tools Breakdown

Process

Pumps

52%Heaters

13%

Misc

12%

Non-Process

Pumps

9%

UPS Controller

4%RF Gen

6%

Remote

Plasma Clean

3%Mini Environ

1%

Used Sematech

Data and TI Fab

Data

Facilities Systems Breakdown

Chillers

42.0%

Recirc Fans

18.5%

N2 Plant

12.2%

UP Water

8.2%

Exhaust

6.9%

MU Air

4.9%

CDA

4.4% PC Water Pump

2.9%

Design based on measurements

� Vacuum pumps (21% of total electrical load)

�� TI/Sematech/vendors idle-signal protocol (tools use about as much energy idling—nearly all saveable—as processing wafers!)

�� New vacuum pumps save much PC H2O (~30% higher efficiency + idle signal saves 300 tons of cooling), N2, ~7% of total el.

�� Exhaust

�� TI recovers some general-exhaust heat and works with tool suppliers to optimize for key thermal constraints; better design saved ~50 m3/s of exhaust (& makeup)

�� PC water

�� Design for small pressure drop and close-approach heat exchangers reduced system flow by 20% (190 L/s)

Central utilities plant (21% of fab load)

�� Split plant: 25% @ 4.4˚C for dehumidification (0.44–0.51 kW/ton), 75% @ 12.2˚C for all other loads (0.32–0.50 kW/ton)

�� 12˚C chiller (steadier load) has heat recovery; build 1

boiler + 1 backup, not 6; mainly off; with high-P spray (not steam) humidification, NOx emissions –60%

�� Variable-speed primary distribution; efficient pipes, pumps, variable-speed motors (& fans)

�� One 4˚C spare chiller provides redundancy at both

temperatures via blending

Makeup air

�� Run-around coils for free reheat

�� Low-face-velocity coils (2 m/s) for small fans

�� High-pressure humidification, no steam boilers (this + eliminated heating boilers cut NOx 60%)

�� Investigating enthalpy-wheel recovery (>70% recapture of exhaust enthalpy)

�� Testing desiccant-wheel MUA option to eliminate entire 4.4˚C chiller plant

Recirculated air (10% of fab load)

� Take full credit for mini-environments: specify Class 100 turbulent (ISO Class 5)

�� Reducing HEPA coverage from 50% to 25–30% (FFU) eliminated 300 tons of cooling

�� Filter life rises as 1/velocity2, so 29% at 0.35 m/s HEPA coverage, not 23% at 0.44 m/s, pays for extra FFUs in 6 y—a 13% return on investment

�� TI is testing different smocks for cooler workers & warmer rooms; less particle concern because wafers are in front-opening unified pods (FOUPs)

Water efficiency too

�� DI water (>60% of total water use): using RO reject & some recycling cut DI input 20%

�� CT evaporation/blowdown (20%) cut �50% by using first-stage RO brine water

�� Scrubbers (10%) replace raw water purchase with relatively pure “industrial waste”

�� Total reclamation saves nearly 4 ML/d of input

�� Waterless urinals (–2.3 ML/y), 8,000 m3

rainwater retention pond, native plants

Administrative building (and, often, fab too)

� Passive solar (E–W) orientation, exterior shading

� Energy & daylight models: 30˚ rotation = –US$30k/y

� Lightshelf daylighting, dimming efficient el. lights

� Optimized glazing (high visible light transmittance and insulation, but rejects infrared rays)

� Roof: high solar reflectivity and infrared emissivity

�� Demand-controlled ventilation (CO2 sensors)

Expected results vs. TI’s previous best design

�� –20% energy, –35% water

�� –30% total capex/m2—cheaper than Chinese fab

�� Next fab can save even more and cost even less (and it did so when TI recently designed it)

�� Better-optimized tool design—already drove half TI’s savings

�� Use heat-driven desiccant to eliminate low-temperature chiller

�� Onsite trigeneration (electricity, process & space heat, cooling)

Overall TI project economics

� LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design): Silver fab (a first), Silver/Gold admin. bldg.

�� LEED-related items cost US$2–3 million, mainly efficiency that TI would have bought anyway

�� US$750,000 operating savings expected in first year at old energy prices (which then doubled)

�� At full build-out, >US$3 million/y saved operating costs (or twice that at today’s energy price)

�� Efficiency’s net extra capex: <1%, probably negative

An example of what’s next: fuel cells

�� Ultrareliable onsite power; no UPS capex or losses

�� Free process and space cooling and heating

�� Free ultrapure hot water (very valuable)

�� Onsite H2 production replaces tube-truck shipments

�� Even retrofitting today’s costly (2–3 US$/W) fuel cells in a fab can be justified if properly sited & used to capture “distributed benefits” (www.smallisprofitable.org)

Four TimesSquare, NYC

(Condé Nast Building)�

•� 148,000 m2, 47 storeys

•� non-toxic, low-energy materials

•� 40% energy savings/m2 despitedoubled ventilation rates

•� Gas absorption chillers

•� Fuel cells

•� Integral PV in spandrels onS & W elevations

•� Ultrareliable power helped recruit premium tenants at premium rents

•� Fiber-optic signage (signage required at lower floor(s))

•� Experiment in Performance Based Fees rewarding savings, not costs

•� Market average construction cost

Bundling PVs with end-use efficiency: a recent example

�� Santa Rita Jail, Alameda County, California

� PowerLight 1.18 MWp project, 1.46 GWh/y, 1.25 ha of PVs

� Integrated with Cool Roof and ESCO efficiency retrofit (light-ing, HVAC, controls, 1 GWh/y)

� Energy management optimizes use of PV output

� Dramatic (~0.7 MWp) load cut

� Gross project cost US$9M

� State incentives US$5M

� Gross savings US$15M, 25y PV

� IRR >10%/y (Cty. hurdle rate)

�� Works for PVs, so should work better for anything cheaper

Saving 1–2% of total costs matters

�� Saved energy costs, like any saved overhead, drop straight to the bottom line

�� Basic energy efficiency retrofits can often add one percentage point to total net profit

�� If new chip sales earn (say) 10% profit, then sav-ing $1 worth of energy increases profits by the same as $10 of new sales—harder and less cer-tain (especially nowadays) than saving energy!

�� If you’re short of capital, don’t waste it on oversized and overcomplex utility plant

STMicroelectronics’ CO2 goals

�� RMI showed how to cut CO2/chip by ~92% profitably in 1999, ~98% profitably by 2010

� STM adopted CO2–90% goal 1990–2000, 0 by 2010 (despite projected chip output 40� 1990 level)

� 2010 supply goal: 65% fuel cells & cogeneration, �5% renewables, so CO2/$VA < 20% of 1990 level

� STM expects 1994–2010 CO2 reduction >10 MT + US$0.9b; also PFC reduction �10� 1995–2008— equivalent to >10 MT CO2 by 2010

Cut CO2/chip by 10–100��...at a profit!

�� �0.44 from 200- to 300-mm shift if same yield �� �0.3 from state-of-the-art fab efficiency* �� �0.4 from onsite trigeneration (net of reformer loss) �� �0.94 from fuel-cell elimination of UPS losses �� �0.5 fueling with gas, not coal (less carbon/J) �� �0.5 switching energy supply to 50% renewables �� These six steps cut CO2 per chip by ~99%** �� So if output rises 30� (40%/y for 10 y or 18%/y for

20 y), and you fuel your growth this way, total CO2drops by nearly 3�, so you could sell carbon permits

�� Almost all steps are profitable now, the rest soon �� All can also bring big operational benefits *STMicroelectronics has published a path to �0.33, reducing a 1997 15-MW fab to 5 MW. **STMicroelectronics published 5/98 a realistic path to a 92% reduction. They and I ignore

upstream options, e.g., 4–5� Czochralski savings.

Obstacles to resource-efficient fabs

�� Very risk-averse culture

�� Why innovate only inside the cleanroom, and not also in how the utility functions are provided?

�� Is any fab in the world even optimized for its climate?

�� Organizational issues

�� Barriers and tribal behavior between process & utility staffs

�� Nobody owns losses or gets rewarded for savings

�� Schedule: there’s never a good time to design for efficiency

�� Key data are seldom measured or displayed

�� Only a few fabs in the world accurately measure ChW kW/t

Information is cheap, powerful, but viscous

�� One factory saved US$30,000 the first year by… labeling the light switches

�� A hard-drive factory saved a great deal of money by properly labeling the red/green-zone “idiot gauge” showing pressure drop in its big filter banks �� “Cents per drive” and “Million $ profit per year” (nonlinear)

�� Innumerable facilities have saved untold energy and maintenance costs by measuring

�� But many more use poor or uncalibrated sensors

�� Few plants are designed to measure what’s needed

�� And very few present key efficiency metrics to the operator, real-time, in effective graphics

Benefits of monitoring with good graphic display

Ch

ille

r E

ffic

ien

cy (

kW

/ton

)

Chiller Load (tons)

Finding 1 - Chillers are always operating at less

efficient than manufacturer’s specifications

Finding 3 - The maximum load is never above 1500 tons. A fourth chiller called for

in the plant expansion is not required, saving approximately $1,000,000

Finding 2 - The second and third chillers are running before they are needed, due to a control problem.

Courtesy Rumsey Engineers

Getting the value you want

�� Specify the physical performance you want

�� Reward the savings you get and measure

�� Reward designers for savings, not expenditures

�� Reward especially the toolmakers for system value—if you don’t ask for high efficiency and tell them what it’s worth, you won’t get it

�� Will the next fab save 50% of energy? 80%? How much less will it cost? Let’s find out!

No limits to profitable industrial energy efficiency for a very long time to come

�� Industry is a materials-processing activity, ~99.98% of the materials are wasted, and most of this waste will ultimately be turned into profit by dematerialization, virtualization, product longevity, closed loops, industrial ecology, desktop mfg., etc.

�� Conventional technological innovation continues apace despite appalling private and public underinvestment in energy RD&D

�� Important new classes of processes, like microfluidics

�� End-use efficiency keeps getting bigger and cheaper, esp. w/integrative engineering to “tunnel through the cost barrier”

�� Next come two further design revolutions �� Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature (Janine Benyus)

�� Perhaps nanotechnology (in Eric Drexler’s original sense)

›� Caution: nanomaterials look risky, and biomimicry is not biotechno-logy (often unwise): over time, Darwin always beats Descartes

�� Plus the options we haven’t yet thought of—but could live to do so…if we quickly get the hang of responsibly combining a large forebrain with opposable thumbs!

Companies that capture these opportunities for elegant frugality will flourish

Those that don’t won’t be a problem—because after a while, they won’t be around

“Only puny secrets require protection. Big

discoveries are protected by public incredulity.” —Marshall McLuhan

www.rmi.org�

We are the people we have been waiting for

Management recommendations (1)

�� Establish a serious corporate energy efficiency program: site champions, coaches, accountability, aligned incentives, continuous improvement

�� Promote necessary corporate cultural changes, including curiosity and managed risk-taking

�� See facilities not as overhead to minimize but as a profit center to optimize by mining valuable waste

�� Charge processes the shadow cost of services used

�� Review capital allocation rules top-to-bottom so the financial and operating people share the same goal

Management recommendations (2)

�� Measure, visualize, and communicate the data

�� Convert efficiency metrics into money metrics

�� Require whole-system design

�� Set minimum performance standards; reward better

�� For example, a new SE Asian plant should produce 5.5˚C chilled water on the design day at not over 0.54 kW/t: 0.48 chiller* + 0.026 chilled water pump + 0.021 condenser water pump + 0.010 cooling towers. Why settle for worse and costlier?

�� *ST’s retrofitted AMK fab averages 0.44 chiller kW/t (half of typical, approaching 1/4 of some), producing 15˚C water at 0.38 kW/t and 5.5˚C water at 0.58 kW/t. A new dual-temperature (15/6.7˚C) Singapore design can get 0.43 kW/t chiller, 0.52 whole-system

Management recommendations (3)

�� Technology and design are dynamic. Never stop learning. If you’ve just retrofitted, retrofit again. Remember the fecundity of the tree that keeps growing more low-hanging fruit.

�� Traditional designers claim this approach doesn’t work, or they already do it. Both can’t be true. If the latter is, their designs’ technical efficiency should compare favorably with the best in the world. Does it?

�� Demand and incentivize advanced efficiency from vendors and contractors: reward measured savings, not expenditures. Different outcomes require different actions.